R.NADARAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Applicant in O. A. No. 413 of 2016 on the file of the 5th respondent-Tribunal, is the writ petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner/Original Applicant in the said O. A. , had averred that he was working as Village Administrative Officer from 17. 09. 1982 and retired on 31.10.2007 and he was not granted promotion as Revenue Inspector during his entire length of service. The Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner claimed relaxation of the recruitment rules, which prescribe that such persons is to be promoted if they are above 50 years of age and had made atleast 5 attempts to pass the departmental test prescribed for promotion as Revenue Inspector subject to the condition that the record of service was such as to merit consideration. The Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner also took a stand that he had earned the grading of "Good" in the Annual Confidential Report in the last 5 years before retirement and he is entitled to invoke the rule of relaxation and made a request, and it was rejected vide impugned communication of the 1st respondent dated 14.9.2015. The Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner made a challenge to the said proceedings by filing the above said Original Application. The 5th respondent-Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 1.4.2019 made in O. A. No. 413 of 2016, has dismissed the said Original Application, by observing that they are unable to see any remark of superior officers as to the outstanding performance of the original applicant or exemplary performance during the last 5 years of service and the relevant entry shows "Good" remarks and as such, was not good enough for a promotion to the level of Revenue Inspector. The Original Applicant, challenging the illegality of the impugned order dated 01. 04. 2019 made in O. A. No. 413 of 2016, has filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) When the matter was listed for admission on 16.7.2019, the learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) accepted notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. Thereafter, it was listed for hearing on 9.9.2019 before me and N. Seshasaye, J. and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had invited the attention of this court to the typed set of documents from Page Nos. 31 to 47 and would submit that as per the entries available, the petitioner had received "Good" entries and as such, the findings rendered by the Tribunal in that regard, are only unsustainable and also posed the question as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to receive any arrears in terms of cash or not and this court, adjourned the matter 'for orders' on 13.9.2019. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned twice and lastly the matter was listed on 14.10.2019. On that day, after hearing the submission of both sides and from the materials placed, in the note, it is pointed out that the petitioner had made five attempts and as such, the stand taken by the official respondents was not accepted and also taken note of the memo of calculation submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and it has disclosed the fact that the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears of Rs. 33,157/- upto the date of retirement on 31.10.2007 and the only dispute is with regard to arrears of pension and according to the petitioner, he is entitled to Rs. 1,39,860/- under the said calculation. The learned Special Government Pleader prayed for short accommodation as to the entitlement of the petitioner to get pension arrears of Rs. 1,39,860/- and accordingly, it was directed to be listed under the caption 'for orders'.